Two weeks ago, Inspector-General of Police Razarudin Husain made an important and far-reaching announcement on the lifestyles of police officers.
The police, he said, will monitor and conduct “profiling” of officers or members of the force who are found to be living luxurious lifestyles that do not match their positions and monthly salaries.
To be carried out by Bukit Aman’s integrity and compliance department (JIPS), the profiling will be against members who spend lavishly or possess assets beyond their means.
Unfortunately, the state elections overshadowed this initiative and more information was not made available, but Razarudin did give some bare details.
“Take for example an officer whose salary is RM8,000 and he owns three houses and three cars. We will investigate his household spending, credit cards, and others to determine if they are commensurate with his income,” Utusan Malaysia quoted him.
To say such an exercise has long been overdue is an understatement. For years, the supposed shenanigans of some police officers have been made headlines, only to be treated with contempt after so-called explanations.
Take the case of Wan Ahmad Najmuddin Mohd, former head of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID).
Explanation given
He was stripped of more than A$320,000 (RM1 million) by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), which suspected his Sydney bank account held laundered money or proceeds of crime.
Wan Ahmad opened a Commonwealth Bank “Goal Saver” account in 2011, listing his address at Bankstown and then Glebe in Sydney. One week after he concluded an Australian trip in 2016, the account received a flurry of suspicious cash deposits.
Unknown depositors visited branches and ATMs around the country, from Biloela in country Queensland to Devonport in northern Tasmania to Lakemba in Sydney’s west and Melbourne’s Central Business District.
The account balance grew by nearly A$290,000 in a month, mostly in structured deposits below A$10,000, the threshold above which law enforcement agencies receive mandatory notifications.
The freezing and forfeiture applications to the New South Wales Supreme Court, based solely on the structured deposits, did not explore whether he was involved in the indictable offences.
“I’ve given my explanation,” he told Fairfax Media in Australia.
“My department wrote a letter to the AFP.”
In Malaysia, guess who came to his defence?
Getaway clarification
None other than the then home minister and deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said Wan Ahmad was perhaps “naive” on the Australian legal system.
“This matter arose since 2016… Wan Ahmad mentioned the real source of the money was the sale of a home to finance his child’s education in Australia, but the law of that country requires a transaction of over A$10,000 to obtain special permission.
“But he has explained the matter to the authorities and also personally to myself.
“We accept his explanation in very good faith,” he was quoted as saying by Bernama.
And that was the perfect getaway clarification which no one believed. If you sell a house in Seremban, the buyer would deposit the money in your account or that of your solicitors.
Hypothetically speaking, in this case, the buyer chose to deposit the money from bank accounts in Kota Baru, Kuala Terengganu, Kota Kinabalu, and other towns in amounts of below A$10,000.
Doesn’t that say something about this “transaction”?
But the file was closed and Wan Ahmad was happy to let the AFP forfeit the money.
Grandiose plans
So, Razarudin’s clean-up campaign should revisit this ugly episode that made the news in both countries.
Didn’t he say: “We conduct inquiries and investigations into every accusation that is made? We also act if we receive information regarding our officers or members found in karaoke lounges or intoxicated at nightclubs.”
For good measure, he added that JIPS will conduct investigations to verify allegations of corruption or other misconduct before taking the necessary action.
Making such announcements without appropriate action will be the same old thing – grandiose plans with little to show at the end of the day.
Four months ago, Razadin’s predecessor, Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani said police were scrutinising reports by the MACC of misconduct involving its personnel that had no action taken.
He assured the police will never compromise on any wrongdoing, in addition to working closely with related agencies including the MACC and the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission, towards upholding integrity within the force.
The MACC said that some government agencies have been sweeping reports of misconduct involving their own under the rug, despite recommending that these issues of these problematic officers be addressed. Of these 125, involved police personnel.
“The Integrity and Standard Compliance Department have already prepared a detailed report on the matter, and we are looking into the report, which said that we did not take action against those involved.
“...there were no reports that we ignored and did not take follow-up action because we view misconduct cases seriously and hold fast to integrity,” he said.
What happened to the report? Has any action been taken and why has it taken a prodding in the media to move into action?
Making statements prolifically may provide the soundbites which may have been aimed at the naïve, but aren’t all these part of a “syiok sendiri” exercise? - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.